16:10 is (thankfully) going the way of the dodo. In another years or so the question won't be pertinent.

I have no specific hate of 16:10 - it's just that 16:9 was already an established widescreen aspect for displays (TVs) for a long time (in technology terms at least). Then PC manufacturers had to come along and be different by making widescreen PC monitors 16:10 instead of 16:9, making 16:9 videos and games original designed for HDTVs (e.g. console games) display inoptimally, which is to say with black bars or stretching.

16:10 does of course give you a little more vertical space (in displays of equivalent overall area) which is good for desktop work, but it's so close to 16:9, that they should have just traded that for compatibility with a long established widescreen ratio. Only now, 2 years later, did they realize their folly and start phasing out 16:10 displays.

absolutely 16:10 because 16:9 is so small vertically that 1280x1024,1690x1050,1920x1080 pretty much look the same except are wider, with 16:10 things on screen at least get bigger while playing games. 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 FTW, unless using big screen TV as a monitor than 16:9 is good

When comparing the resolutions available, you basically just lop off the bottom or the top of the screen.

1920x1200 vs 1920x1080
1680x1050 vs 1600x900
1440x900 vs 1366x768

Guess which of those are 16:10 resolutions and guess which are the 16:9... I'll give you a hint... 16:9 = less...

Although I guess you are an example of how marketing works, since if a game supports Widescreen properly, you get a wider field of view with 16:10 than you do with 16:9 due to the inherit height advantage of 16:10, along with the fact that 16:10 just simply has more pixels to work with...

The more you know...

__________________"Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that curiosity killed the cat, I say only that the cat died nobly." - Arnold Edinborough

When comparing the resolutions available, you basically just lop off the bottom or the top of the screen.

1920x1200 vs 1920x1080
1680x1050 vs 1600x900
1440x900 vs 1366x768

Guess which of those are 16:10 resolutions and guess which are the 16:9... I'll give you a hint... 16:9 = less...

Although I guess you are an example of how marketing works, since if a game supports Widescreen properly, you get a wider field of view with 16:10 than you do with 16:9 due to the inherit height advantage of 16:10, along with the fact that 16:10 just simply has more pixels to work with...

The more you know...

rofl

I know which are 16:9 and 16:10, but 16:9 gives you a wider FOV

Perhaps you are the victim of merketing? oh 16:10 is a bigger number so...

I dont want black bars, I also want easy to use clone mode so my monitor and HDTV are running the same res..

Maybe for you, but since my TV isn't my monitor, and my monitor is used for more than just viewing games, I have no issues with the hotkey setup I have to on the fly switch. I'll take black bars as the price I pay so I can do more on screen, see more of my game, see more of the keyboard drivers, see more of the...

*cough*

Anyways, I like the choice, and my choice is more screen realestate since even when watching most hi-def movies or wide screen movies even on 16:9 you get black bars. So 16:10 just simply makes more sense for me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by demowhc

rofl

I know which are 16:9 and 16:10, but 16:9 gives you a wider FOV

Perhaps you are the victim of merketing? oh 16:10 is a bigger number so...

At what magic non-available resolution do you speak of? Give me something in practical numbers... So your choice of 16:9 is just limiting your working area, you get less height, while I get the same width... Damn... So I do get the best of both, without sacrificing anything but a theoretical advantage...

But since you seem intent on believing what the manufacturers and their "ULTRA-WIDE FULL HD" marketing mumbo jumbo...

I defer to this picture...

Oooh... What's that most of the time 16:10 is wider... Only does 1920 tie for width but fails when it comes to height...

__________________"Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that curiosity killed the cat, I say only that the cat died nobly." - Arnold Edinborough

since if a game supports Widescreen properly, you get a wider field of view with 16:10 than you do with 16:9 due to the inherit height advantage

Wider FoV from 16:10 1920x1080 than 1920x1200? Surely you mean taller FoV? More pixels means more screen if the title has true anamorphic support and can adjust both vertical and horizontal FoV. 1920x1080 16:9 and 1920x1200 16:10 have the same horizontal FoV.

Give me the extra pixels, thanks. I don't see black bars as a strong reason to choose 16:9 over 16:10, the majority of movies I watch are even wider than that so you get black bars no matter what you have.

16:9 gives you the widest possible FOV and maximum viewing of 'in-game' real estate, and I would rather have a wider FOV because it is more natural on the eyes..you look left and right far more than you look up or down.

They say if you cover 1 eye you are essentially viewing a 4:3 ratio, when you open both eyes you are viewing a 16:9 ratio.

The real question that should be asked do you like having black bars when playing 16:9 games on a 16:10 screen. Some games allow you to get the actual 1:1 pixel count by setting the game at 1920x1200. Unfortunately some console ports only limit you to 1920x1080 causing to have black borders on the top and bottom of a monitor.

That poll needs an "either is fine" button. They are close enough that it doesn't matter to me.

I guess which is better depends on how the game scales its FOV. If it is fixed along the y axis then 16x9 will give you fewer pixels but more off to the side. If its fixed along the x axis then they both give the same width but 16x10 gives more height.

For RTS and any flight sims where the vertical axis matters more I would want 16x10. For most FPS a wider field of view would be better.

Unfortunately its not like buying a bigger screen with a wider aspect ratio really gets you a wider field of view. Really the best rig would be three 1920x1200 120Hz screens with 3D Surround powered by three GTX 480s.

Maybe for you, but since my TV isn't my monitor, and my monitor is used for more than just viewing games, I have no issues with the hotkey setup I have to on the fly switch. I'll take black bars as the price I pay so I can do more on screen, see more of my game, see more of the keyboard drivers, see more of the...

*cough*

Anyways, I like the choice, and my choice is more screen realestate since even when watching most hi-def movies or wide screen movies even on 16:9 you get black bars. So 16:10 just simply makes more sense for me.

At what magic non-available resolution do you speak of? Give me something in practical numbers... So your choice of 16:9 is just limiting your working area, you get less height, while I get the same width... Damn... So I do get the best of both, without sacrificing anything but a theoretical advantage...

But since you seem intent on believing what the manufacturers and their "ULTRA-WIDE FULL HD" marketing mumbo jumbo...

I defer to this picture...

Oooh... What's that most of the time 16:10 is wider... Only does 1920 tie for width but fails when it comes to height...

16:9 gives you the widest possible FOV and maximum viewing of 'in-game' real estate, and I would rather have a wider FOV because it is more natural on the eyes..you look left and right far more than you look up or down.

They say if you cover 1 eye you are essentially viewing a 4:3 ratio, when you open both eyes you are viewing a 16:9 ratio.

One eye: 1.17:1
Two eyes: 1.75:1

4:3 = 1.33:1
16:9 = 1.78:1
16:10 = 1.6:1

So 16:9 is too wide, 16:10 is is a bit too narrow, but at the given resolutions, 16:10 just plays nicer.

I have played around with both and my 1440x900 laptop is so much easier to use without constant scrolling that those narrow band 1366x768 monitors, my 1920x1200 display is the same thing, I keep looking for more screen space when I have to use the skinnier displays.

The thing is with current display tech and the resolutions offered, you do end up with an ACTUAL wider screen all the way up to the last resolution when using 16:10 than you do with 16:9. I fail to see why this concept is so hard to grasp.

Quote:

The 16:10 ratio, at 1.6, is close to the golden ratio (1.618, often denoted φ), which is generally considered aesthetically pleasing.

At least since the Renaissance, many artists and architects have proportioned their works to approximate the golden ratio—especially in the form of the golden rectangle, in which the ratio of the longer side to the shorter is the golden ratio—believing this proportion to be aesthetically pleasing. Mathematicians have studied the golden ratio because of its unique and interesting properties

I am simply pointing out that at the resolutions offered by the competing aspect ratios, 16:10 does offer the largest display space available, in width it ties, and in height it wins.

Should I point out how I can see more area when I use a 30" with an even higher resolution allowing for more viewable area in width and height.

You're cherry picking photos seem to lack the height of field, and any real grounding in actual day to day use. In theory, yes 16:9 is wider and the same height as 16:10, but in the real world, 16:10 is just as wide if not wider and always taller. So that allows the use of a taskbar/HUD while rending a 16:9 field of view unobstructed, while on a 16:9 screen you end up with an even narrower but wider fov, it's like looking through the mail slot at 16:9 or looking through the window at 16:10.

But I will again defer to this image of resolution/aspect ratio comparisons:

Now my 1920 pixels wide with 1200 pixels high allows me to see as wide while being taller than yours at 1920 and 1080. I'm not even picking the next step up in 16:10, which is available for public consumption and use. There is no higher 16:9 resolution that is available for our use.

__________________"Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that curiosity killed the cat, I say only that the cat died nobly." - Arnold Edinborough

Wider FoV from 16:10 1920x1080 than 1920x1200? Surely you mean taller FoV? More pixels means more screen if the title has true anamorphic support and can adjust both vertical and horizontal FoV. 1920x1080 16:9 and 1920x1200 16:10 have the same horizontal FoV.

Sorry, that is what I meant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caveman-jim

Fix'd

Yes please!

__________________"Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that curiosity killed the cat, I say only that the cat died nobly." - Arnold Edinborough

Do you fail basic comprehension of how my 1920 pixels wide with 1200 pixels high allows me to see as wide while being taller than yours at 1920 and 1080. I'm not even picking the next step up in 16:10, which is available for public consumption and use.

lol think about what you are saying for a second, then take a deep breath.

Notice the first screenshot in 16:10 at a higher resolution of equal width has less viewing area.

16:10 1280x800
16:9 1280x720

So, in games with proper widescreen support you will have more viewing area on a 16:9 screen.

but 2 things though, most games are designed around 16:9 so will have better HUD placement etc. and there isnt as much of a problem with narrow FOV that people complain about, particularly with console ports.. I very rarely need to adjust FOV on a 16:9 screen.

but 2 things though, most games are designed around 16:9 so will have better HUD placement etc. and there isnt as much of a problem with narrow FOV that people complain about, particularly with console ports.. I very rarely need to adjust FOV on a 16:9 screen.

Thanks for the info and included the comparison screenshots...that really clear for me as I understood that.

Although I guess you are an example of how marketing works, since if a game supports Widescreen properly, you get a wider field of view with 16:10 than you do with 16:9 due to the inherit height advantage of 16:10, along with the fact that 16:10 just simply has more pixels to work with...

Oh yeah....absolutely...

I mean look at how much more of the game world I see at 1680x1050 as I do at 1440x900.

1680x1050:
1440x900

Clearly the higher the resolution, the more you see.

Oh wait...scratch that, you don't see anything more, do you? Becuase how much you see in a game isn't dependant on the number of pixels on the display genius... That you apparently don't understand this demonstrates a critical failure of knowledge on the subject, and you really need to give it a rest. What you actually DO get is a sharper image and a bit finer detail on what you do see. If you wish to continue on the subject, please provide visual proof, from a game, on how you see "more" at 1920x1200 than you do at 1440x900 because it's more pixels...

For games that enforce proper widescreen behavior, where the vertical FOV is constant and the horizontal FOV changes (aka hor+), you will see more of the game world on a 16:9 monitor than a 16:10 monitor. What you get at 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 is very slightly finer detail on what you do see, but you're going to see less of the game world overall.

Now for games that don't enforce properly widescreen behavior, and keep the horizontal FOV locked and change the vertical FOV (aka vert-), you will see more on a 16:10 monitor versus 16:9 (still has nothing to do with the number of pixels) - but that's hardly a victory because you'll see even more than 16:10 on a 4:3 monitor; that's why it's incorrect behavior.